Ive just realised

Spectator#1

Sangre wrote:

It's the 'done thing' to be able to educate yourself in a way so as to make yourself more employable, something which UCD Arts isn't the best at providing. Similarly not everybody has the means to spend 3/4 years in college 'to broaden their horizons'.

So? What's your point? I'm very lucky to have the parents that I do, who appreciate the education I've gotten and were willing to support me in getting it - I fully recognise that. Not having the money to study the arts, not having the inclination to study the arts - those are actual reasons to not study the arts. Moving with the times? That's not.

I'm ten times more 'employable' now than I was before I came in to study. Not that that is why I did it.

The 'estimates' signify something when we're talking about the external value of the degree, namely its value to an employer.

And if you're thinking of an arts degree in terms of its value to an employer, you're already on the wrong track.

Sangre

Spectator#1 wrote:

So? What's your point? I'm very lucky to have the parents that I do, who appreciate the education I've gotten and were willing to support me in getting it - I fully recognise that. Not having the money to study the arts, not having the inclination to study the arts - those are actual reasons to not study the arts. Moving with the times? That's not.

My point was I was clarifying the point of the original poster. The times mean that those who want a job with real prospects need college degrees more and more. They now go to college with a view of being future workers. These are the times we live in.

I'm ten times more 'employable' now than I was before I came in to study. Not that that is why I did it.

And how exactly have you quantified this?

And if you're thinking of an arts degree in terms of its value to an employer, you're already on the wrong track.

Wrong track of what? Just because you don't see your degree in economic and employments terms doesn't diminish the value of those who do.

Spectator#1

Sangre wrote:

My point was I was clarifying the point of the original poster. The times mean that those who want a job with real prospects need college degrees more and more. They now go to college with a view of being future workers. These are the times we live in.

I got that and I can appreciate it too. All I'm saying is you'd be depriving yourself if you wanted to study the arts and you let people with that attitude put you off it. I know plenty of people in that situation. I think it's a damaging attitude, if you have the means and the inclination to do it, f**k the times!

And how exactly have you quantified this?

What are you, a robot? I just know I am. And I could articulate it too, if I needed to persuade an employer to hire me, provided it wasn't to be a lawyer or something that needs a specific qualification.

Wrong track of what? Just because you don't see your degree in economic and employments terms doesn't diminish the value of those who do.

Don't turn this around on me! The reason I'm on this thread is because people are sneering at the arts degree because 'it's not worth anything' in strictly economic/pragmatic terms. All I'm saying is, if you're measuring it in those terms, you're already on the wrong track.

So, to use your words, just because they don't see their degrees in terms of education, betterment and intrinsic value doesn't diminish the value of those who do. And so, by quoting made-up statistics of people who do see it in those terms and urging people to 'move with the times' (by which mloc presumably meant he'd be more inclined to choose a degree in terms of pragmatic usefulness) you're already on the wrong track.

It's not about 'the times'. If I cared about 'the times' I wouldn't be studying in the arts faculty. So, no, I won't!

Het-Field

If somebody comes to college with the strict intention of just getting a job, then you are a drone and I feel completely sorry for you. The vast majority of the workforce dont have college degrees. Many great people work in the Civil Service with very high paying salaries, and regular contact with ministers and government officials. Many simply sat the Civil Service Examination and by doing well at it they got tese jobs. Thus proving that a college education is not key to being employable in terms of high paying jobs.

Furthermore, in America you are expected to study certain elements of the liberal arts when you arrive in college. Once you leave your first college you go to other establishemnts and specialise in medicine/engineering/law etc or alternatvely you turn to a life aof academia. And America churns out one of the most educated and effective workforces in the world

And dont for one second think that a 3rd class honour or a pass degree in B&L or Law or Commerce will carry more weight then a 1st or 2.1. or 2.2 in Arts. I have seen over the past year that it will not help you one bit to have a poor B&L degree, and claim that you are more employable than the 1st Class Arts student. Frankly you wont.

Its the attitude of the Ignorant person who will disparriage the Arts degree. Various other courses have their own complexes around them.

Take Science for example. I choose science because those who frequent the Science block tend to spend most of their time laughing at arts students. To get a Science degree takes a lot of work. Many hours a week doing lectures,labs, practicles etc. It is a real achievement to get a good science degree. However, to get a place in science is easy. Arts has always ranged from 365 up to 390points in 2001. Science dropped as low as 265points in 2004. Now there is nothing easy about a science degree, except gaining entry into the course. A very poor student who has a fluky leaving certificate would be able to get a place in Science with 6 D3 Results. However, this has never been used to dispariage the students of the sciences.

Arts has a very specalised discipline and it has given me skills which I never had before. Analytical skills, skills of inference, drafting skills, mastery of the english language, and a very deep understanding of the world around me.

University is an experience in life, and if people are coming just to become more employable, I suggest you up sticks, and leave.

panda100

Het-Field wrote:

.
Graduates of UCD'S School of Arts and Humanities include Politicians Such as An Tanaiste, the Minister for Justice Equality and Law Reform, and Leader of the PDs Michael McDowell, Alan Dukes, and Garrett Fitzgerald, Judicial Hard HittersJustice Adrian Hardiman of the Irish Supreme Court, .

Perhaps this explains why the goverment is so sh*t.

Het-Field wrote:

.Furthermore of the last four Student Union Presidents, three have been students of the arts, while James Carroll was a student of the Law, which technically is a form of liberal arts Weather people like it or not the Law is part of the Arts, as has been indicitive of the colleges ofference of Law Modules to Arts students..

Ditto for the union



(eeek...panda runs for cover)

griffdaddy

i'd be pretty confident of finding employment with my first class BA international in 2 years time to be honest. As is my friend who has a pre-contract with Deloitte and Touche which starts her off on 23grand plus a masters for the first 3 years and raises her wage to 56grand thereafter. But i don't know much about anything really, i'm too busy playing with my hair and mispronouncing Descartes to think about the big bad world that every other degree prepares you for.:D

Blush_01

griffdaddy wrote:

i'd be pretty confident of finding employment with my first class BA international in 2 years time to be honest. As is my friend who has a pre-contract with Deloitte and Touche which starts her off on 23grand plus a masters for the first 3 years and raises her wage to 56grand thereafter. But i don't know much about anything really, i'm too busy playing with my hair and mispronouncing Descartes to think about the big bad world that every other degree prepares you for.:D

LOL.

Sangre

Het-Field wrote:

If somebody comes to college with the strict intention of just getting a job, then you are a drone and I feel completely sorry for you.

You my friend are a snob.

Het-Field

Sangre wrote:

You my friend are a snob.

No Im Not

Sangre

Then why do you look down on those who go to college just for a job? You do realise some professions require college degrees?

Blush_01

I think (although it's often hard to tell with Het-Field) what he means is that you should do something you want to do, rather than something you feel obliged to do. Those who study something out of obligation, with the pure intent on getting through the education system as fast as possible and allowing it to make the minimum impact possible on them, rather than desiring to learn anything from their experience of education in order to broaden themselves could be termed drones. It's a wasp thing.

panda100

Blush_01 wrote:

I think (although it's often hard to tell with Het-Field) what he means is that you should do something you want to do, rather than something you feel obliged to do

hear hear,do what you want to do in college.
However,I do feel this is a bit of a luxury for some people.I saw my sister reading archeology at UCD and struggle desperatly for 10 years to get a good solid job thst she actually likes. Its all very well studying something you feel really passionate about like celtic stones in prehistoric ages but they dont pay the bills! Ive seen arts friends of mine go though 6 years of college with their degree,masters etc and not get a decent job at the end of it. To some people this is a real problem and they just cant afford to study their heart desires at uni without the reality of real earning potential at the end of it.

Blush_01

That's why some people look beyond college and have plans that reach a bit further than the end of their time in college.

Duffman

I haven't read the thread but feel the urge to stir it up by pointing out that a disproportionately high number of leading professionals in Sangre's field actually did arts in college and are now far more successful than most of his classmates will ever be.

Sangre

Oh, I'd love to read that survey as well Duffman. Link?

Hot Dog

Interesting thread to be sure.

As for myself, I am a science student, final year as it happens and can certainly vouch for the difficulty of science in UCD.

The main issue here is that Arts studnets are seen to be wasters, by and large. The widely held view is of single digit hours a week, and "soft" or " made up" subjects like social science. It is true, most arts students have few contact hours a week, most breeze through with minimal work and most are vapid morons.

But these people do not belong in college. I see arts (speaking as a science student here) as a broadening experience, one to make a student open his mind and eyes after 14 in school to the world around him/her. That I think is the value of arts.

Those folks who "just want a degree" and thinking arts is n easy score on that front are wasting their time, because
a) they will coast an get a 2:1 at best - not highly employable after 3 years which could have been spent earning
b) The skills arts teaches - open mindedness and thinking - has not been learned.

Duffman

LOL I've held moon rocks and I'm in the same boat as Sangre :P

Het-Field

Hot Dog wrote:

Interesting thread to be sure.

As for myself, I am a science student, final year as it happens and can certainly vouch for the difficulty of science in UCD.

The main issue here is that Arts studnets are seen to be wasters, by and large. The widely held view is of single digit hours a week, and "soft" or " made up" subjects like social science. It is true, most arts students have few contact hours a week, most breeze through with minimal work and most are vapid morons.

But these people do not belong in college. I see arts (speaking as a science student here) as a broadening experience, one to make a student open his mind and eyes after 14 in school to the world around him/her. That I think is the value of arts.

Those folks who "just want a degree" and thinking arts is n easy score on that front are wasting their time, because
a) they will coast an get a 2:1 at best - not highly employable after 3 years which could have been spent earning
b) The skills arts teaches - open mindedness and thinking - has not been learned.

Thank you Hot-Dog. You Have just proved my point

"Vapid Morons"
Thats a general statement of monumentous proportions. In fact its interesting that one such as yourself should be so bold as to call anybody a moron, when your post is indicitative of your own moronic tendancies.

"Breeze Through"
Those who breeze through end up with 3rd Class/Pass degrees, and no matter what discipline you are in, that level of degree is on the whole useless. Dont fool yourself that a 3rd in Science is superior to a 2.2 in Arts, because you are deluding yourself.

Signle Digit Hours a week
Yes, I will concede that the lecture time for Arts is limited. But the same applies to Law. In some years Law students will only be required to do four hours a week. However, that does not include the vast number of essays your average arts student has to do. I did roughly 55 in my three years. You commit time elsewhere.

I would like to remind you that there was a time not so long ago that all you had to do was fart in the vicinity of the Science Block, and you were offered a place in first science. 260 points is not exactly the pinnacle of anybodys academic career. However, between 2003-2005 that was roughly what was required to gain entry into the course.

Science students seem to be the ones with the most anamosity towards arts students. You cannot quantify the benefits of the degree by way of the hours of lectures. Just because a packet of biscuits has more in it, doesnt mean that the biscuits happen to taste the best

mloc

Het-Field wrote:

260 points is not exactly the pinnacle of anybodys academic career. However, between 2003-2005 that was roughly what was required to gain entry into the course.

I challenge you to find me someone with an honours degree in science who achieved those points.

Points are utterly irrelevant, once you have begun your college education. Utterly and totally irrelevant. I think its pretty much common knowledge that the leaving cert is merely an exercise in memory retention.

Hot Dog

"Vapid Morons"
Thats a general statement of monumentous proportions. In fact its interesting that one such as yourself should be so bold as to call anybody a moron, when your post is indicitative of your own moronic tendancies.

Why exactly - I did spell check!

"Breeze Through"
Those who breeze through end up with 3rd Class/Pass degrees, and no matter what discipline you are in, that level of degree is on the whole useless. Dont fool yourself that a 3rd in Science is superior to a 2.2 in Arts, because you are deluding yourself

.
Did I not say that these would get a 2:2 at best? Are we not actually in agreement on this point?

Signle Digit Hours a week
Yes, I will concede that the lecture time for Arts is limited. But the same applies to Law. In some years Law students will only be required to do four hours a week. However, that does not include the vast number of essays your average arts student has to do. I did roughly 55 in my three years. You commit time elsewhere.

What is your point? I commit time all over the place.

I would like to remind you that there was a time not so long ago that all you had to do was fart in the vicinity of the Science Block, and you were offered a place in first science. 260 points is not exactly the pinnacle of anybodys academic career. However, between 2003-2005 that was roughly what was required to gain entry into the course.

Yes and we got the biggest bunch of lamps because of that. Most never continued past christmas. Are you judging the merit of a couurse on its entry points, because that would be awful shallow of you.

Science students seem to be the ones with the most anamosity towards arts students. You cannot quantify the benefits of the degree by way of the hours of lectures. Just because a packet of biscuits has more in it, doesnt mean that the biscuits happen to taste the best

Was that not exactly what I was getting at with my whole "value of arts" spiel? Did you even read my post?

Stabshauptmann

mloc wrote:

I challenge you to find me someone with an honours degree in science who achieved those points.

Points are utterly irrelevant, once you have begun your college education. Utterly and totally irrelevant. I think its pretty much common knowledge that the leaving cert is merely an exercise in memory retention.

Ah yes, but that does in itself show something. Granted its not intelligence, but it does show commitment. It does show you are willing to put in the effort.

What would it matter if I had a high IQ but I was the laziest person on the planet - Id still probably achieve very little.

I think the points system is fair, as it gives spaces to the people who want it the most.

Stabshauptmann

Spectator#1 wrote:

I picked Arts in my CAO because I was interested and also because I didn't want to close my options in terms of the careers that I was thinking about . It's definitely the best course I could have done, I got an awful lot out of it and I have no regrets about doing it. It's the kind of education that sets you up to continue learning for the rest of your life, whether you continue studying or not.

FionnMatthew wrote:

Degrees intended only to further employment prospects outside the academy - they are the symptom of business-oriented higher-learning, and have no legitimate claim to academic credibility.

I think its funny when arts students think that their courses are the only ones that give students a better understanding of the way the world works and critical analysis skills.

Im pretty sure every course in UCD gives the skills you are lauding, but they give them practical applications. And I fail to see anything wrong with that.

I'm not condemning or praising arts, just dont think those arguments particularly convincing.

Spectator#1

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

Im pretty sure every course in UCD gives the skills you are lauding, but they give them practical applications. And I fail to see anything wrong with that.

I'm not condemning or praising arts, just dont think those arguments particularly convincing.

Well that could be because you expected them to do something they weren't trying to do. I have never presumed that Arts is the only course that would endow critical capacities or a knowledge of the world, I just said it was the right course for me and that I'm very glad I did it and it was a well spent three years of my life. I began posting here to explain why I think an Arts education is good in it's own right, not to attack other degrees.

I think its funny when arts students think that their courses are the only ones that give students a better understanding of the way the world works and critical analysis skills.

Good for you! But that's not me you're talking about there!

lizzyvera

It's great to study something you love (I do) but it's even more important to have a career you love because you'll be working for 40 years, 9-5.

If I didn't like science (or anything else) so much, I still would have gone to college because working part-time in Dunnes Stores was so depressing.

FionnMatthew

Blush_01 wrote:

That's why some people look beyond college and have plans that reach a bit further than the end of their time in college.

What do you study if you want to be a writer? No, not a journalist, or a user manual writer, but an actual writer. (And 'writers' of the calibre of Cecelia Aherne and Dan Browne don't apply here.)

What do you study if you want to pursue a career in the arts? Like as an actor, or a theatre practitioner? An acting course will teach you skills but there's a whole world of culture there, the art of understanding the literature it is your business to present, which you're not taught in such career oriented "training" courses.

What do you study if you want to be a Doctor of Philosophy? (Actually, this one is pretty obvious!)

There is a diverse range of careers in the arts that you simply can't get "training" for, that you can only 'do' by becoming the sort of person who does that kind of thing, and you can't become something with focused training. You need to get a broad education, and slowly immerse yourself in it, take it on, and start to own your art.

The only reason careers like that are considered 'airy fairy' and unlikely, is because most people can't see a clear way to them, and can't see the value of immersive education, of this kind of becoming-like, which being immersed in the arts helps you to do.

Where do you think people like Samuel Beckett came from? Do you think they pulled literary-mindedness out of their arse?

You can't just suddenly decide you're a poet, or a writer (the way, ahem, Aherne did) and suddenly be one.

Some of us do look beyond college. And we appreciate the value of what what we're doing as a step towards that.

Blush_01

Fionn, I study Arts and was simply pointing out that just because you're in Arts doesn't mean you don't have an idea of what you're going to work at after college. I agree with the majority of what you're saying.

Tigrrrr

Het-Field wrote:

Those who breeze through end up with 3rd Class/Pass degrees

Not always. In some degrees the only grades that matter are your final year grades; you can scrape through the previous ones without any adverse effects.

and no matter what discipline you are in, that level of degree is on the whole useless.

That's just untrue. I know a guy with a pass degree in Veterinary currently doing an MSc. Also, in some disciplines first class honours are extremely rare, this is not really the case in Arts. Furthermore, the registrar of the university you study at scraped through his medical degree with a bare pass.

beanyb

Tigrrrr wrote:

Also, in some disciplines first class honours are extremely rare, this is not really the case in Arts.

No, that is the case in Arts. First class honours are very rare, though it would slightly vary depending on the particular subject area. As I already said somewhere back in this thread, at Christmas in final year history (not including Mode 1) ONE person got a first. There's 300-400 people in history, so I'd say they're pretty rare.

FionnMatthew

Blush_01 wrote:

Fionn, I study Arts and was simply pointing out that just because you're in Arts doesn't mean you don't have an idea of what you're going to work at after college. I agree with the majority of what you're saying.

Ahh. Indeed. My mistake. Sorry!

Húrin

estebancambias wrote:

Im an idiot and should have taken school more serious, last year now with 3 months left im aiming for arts like well done people who get or got in but it shouldnt be your aspiration, but anyway whats the lowest possible points I could get into arts

Yet another example of the Irish person who seeks university not out of interest but out of a desire to extend childhood.